Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #306 > unrolled thread
| Started by | boltar2003@boltar.world |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-05 09:37 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-05-05 12:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 270 — 46 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.unix.programmer
Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-05 09:37 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? China Blue Veins <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-05 02:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-05 09:58 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? China Blue Veins <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-05 04:47 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-07 23:22 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-05 11:58 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-05-05 13:40 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-05 13:52 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Azazel <azazel@remove.azazel.net> - 2011-05-05 09:22 -0500
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-05 14:41 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Azazel <azazel@remove.azazel.net> - 2011-05-05 10:30 -0500
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-07 23:23 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-05 18:55 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-05 11:58 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-06 14:36 +0200
RLIMIT_STACK (was: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux?) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-05-10 14:19 +0100
Re: RLIMIT_STACK Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-11 08:28 +0200
Re: RLIMIT_STACK scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-11 16:18 +0000
Re: RLIMIT_STACK Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-11 18:37 +0200
Re: RLIMIT_STACK scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-11 19:53 +0000
Re: RLIMIT_STACK Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-05-11 17:43 +0100
Re: RLIMIT_STACK Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-11 20:03 +0200
Re: RLIMIT_STACK Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-11 20:20 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-06 03:27 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-06 00:03 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-06 09:18 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-06 02:56 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 15:19 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-05 12:24 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2011-05-05 15:40 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 02:18 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-05 21:17 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2011-05-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 02:44 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-06 09:58 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-06 11:11 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-06 10:16 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-06 11:28 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 02:34 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-06 15:09 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 13:03 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-07 09:01 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 14:32 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-07 16:27 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 16:43 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-08 06:19 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-08 17:18 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-08 09:58 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-09 11:34 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-11 03:48 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-11 10:51 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-11 08:11 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-11 15:47 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-12 15:05 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-07 16:23 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-07 18:12 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 10:30 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 20:01 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 12:37 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-07 18:15 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-08 15:26 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-08 10:46 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 21:49 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 09:59 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 20:24 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-07 15:04 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 15:15 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-07 21:02 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 19:57 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 20:26 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 21:06 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-07 23:27 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-05 20:07 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-06 02:53 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 19:27 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-06 10:07 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-06 10:29 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-06 03:04 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-06 12:04 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-05-07 04:11 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-07 13:07 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-05-07 21:13 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-08 10:46 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-05-08 05:11 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Golden California Girls <gldncagrls@aol.com.mil> - 2011-05-07 08:59 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 02:58 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-06 07:08 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 08:18 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Marco Parrone <marco@marcoparrone.com> - 2011-05-06 17:32 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-06 21:46 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 00:28 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-07 09:01 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 06:35 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-08 01:26 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-08 09:37 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-08 03:21 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-08 10:44 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-08 07:23 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-09 11:30 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-09 13:36 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-09 07:08 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 07:38 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 07:44 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-09 21:44 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 13:59 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 14:19 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-09 15:05 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 10:20 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 19:04 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-14 11:13 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-09 15:40 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-09 23:44 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 11:06 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-10 00:11 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 11:17 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-10 07:10 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-10 12:24 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 13:43 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 08:48 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 08:54 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-12 05:56 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-11 00:44 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-10 19:36 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-10 23:21 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-11 07:08 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-11 11:48 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-11 10:03 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-11 10:12 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-11 21:23 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2011-05-11 21:07 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-12 09:45 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 08:00 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-11 19:35 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-12 06:51 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-12 22:57 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-11 11:47 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 08:07 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-10 21:16 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-11 02:40 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 09:39 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-11 19:42 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-15 00:23 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-05-14 22:30 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-05-15 18:21 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-16 04:19 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-16 08:40 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-16 17:53 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2011-05-16 16:58 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-16 21:39 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-17 09:12 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-17 10:20 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-17 15:00 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-05-17 20:28 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-17 14:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-17 16:23 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-17 23:06 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-18 01:02 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-18 01:29 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-18 04:03 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-17 16:47 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-17 17:21 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-23 21:57 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-23 21:57 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-23 17:45 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-24 11:43 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-24 10:58 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Sherm Pendley <sherm.pendley@gmail.com> - 2011-05-11 11:11 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-11 19:48 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-09 16:22 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-09 21:25 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-10 17:28 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 12:20 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-10 03:53 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 20:18 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-10 04:42 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-10 09:12 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-10 03:21 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-10 10:53 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-10 08:12 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-10 09:39 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-10 12:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-11 08:12 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 15:16 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-10 19:43 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-11 07:41 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-11 19:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-11 12:45 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-10 07:50 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-10 11:04 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-08 09:27 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-08 08:04 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-08 22:50 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 00:18 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 19:49 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-08 20:05 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-08 13:44 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 00:22 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 17:05 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 14:07 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 22:49 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 21:08 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-16 11:10 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> - 2011-05-16 08:04 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2011-05-07 19:11 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 07:17 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2011-05-08 10:16 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-09 09:03 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-06 08:59 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 03:01 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-06 07:13 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 09:02 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-06 15:41 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 02:53 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-07 16:17 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 10:08 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 20:20 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 14:26 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-07 14:31 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-07 23:27 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-07 17:22 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 10:24 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-07 17:32 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-08 10:57 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-08 08:09 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 19:41 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-08 17:59 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-09 09:01 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 20:41 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-07 12:48 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-08 11:01 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-05-08 13:10 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 19:51 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-08 22:21 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-06-04 12:54 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-04 12:59 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 06:30 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-10 21:56 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 13:53 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-07 15:16 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-07 23:42 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-07 19:37 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 07:17 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 09:24 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-08 10:36 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 13:29 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 08:37 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-08 11:13 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-09 15:46 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-08 00:28 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 23:06 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-08 07:30 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-08 15:51 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 13:33 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-14 11:08 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-14 15:53 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-10 22:14 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-08 11:08 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 08:15 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-10 08:30 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-11 03:43 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-05 12:18 -0700
Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-08 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EZyxp.145417$Co6.25782@news.usenetserver.com> |
| In reply to | #413 |
Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes: >Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > >> In article <lnaaeyp35x.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >> >>> Do many actual programs malloc() much more memory than they're >>> actually going to use? >> >> Probably not, but that's not relevant. malloc isn't the system call >> that adds memory to the process, sbrk is. When malloc find that the >> heap is used up, it probably DOES request more memory with sbrk than it >> needs just to satisfy the current request. > >Ah! Like Keith I'd often wondered about just why this happens. That >makes a lot of sense: malloc wants big chunks of memory to parcel out >from. And sbrk() needs to allocate full pages to the process, so at a minimum, a call to sbrk will fetch at least 4k bytes (on ia32/x86_64 - more on PPC/Sparc/MIPS/ia64 where the minimum page size could be considerably larger). scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-14 13:33 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87aaepwoyx.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #430 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes: > >Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > > > >> In article <lnaaeyp35x.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, > >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Do many actual programs malloc() much more memory than they're > >>> actually going to use? > >> > >> Probably not, but that's not relevant. malloc isn't the system call > >> that adds memory to the process, sbrk is. When malloc find that the > >> heap is used up, it probably DOES request more memory with sbrk than it > >> needs just to satisfy the current request. > > > >Ah! Like Keith I'd often wondered about just why this happens. That > >makes a lot of sense: malloc wants big chunks of memory to parcel out > >from. > > And sbrk() needs to allocate full pages to the process, so at a minimum, > a call to sbrk will fetch at least 4k bytes (on ia32/x86_64 - more on > PPC/Sparc/MIPS/ia64 where the minimum page size could be considerably larger). But if you are sbrking more because the page size is large, then you're not sbrking more than you need. None of the pages, all 1 of them, goes unmapped. There's no over-commit in this scenario. The question was about overcommit. Phil -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-14 11:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-910AFC.11081314052011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #557 |
In article <87aaepwoyx.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > > > Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes: > > >Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: > > > > > >> In article <lnaaeyp35x.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, > > >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Do many actual programs malloc() much more memory than they're > > >>> actually going to use? > > >> > > >> Probably not, but that's not relevant. malloc isn't the system call > > >> that adds memory to the process, sbrk is. When malloc find that the > > >> heap is used up, it probably DOES request more memory with sbrk than it > > >> needs just to satisfy the current request. > > > > > >Ah! Like Keith I'd often wondered about just why this happens. That > > >makes a lot of sense: malloc wants big chunks of memory to parcel out > > >from. > > > > And sbrk() needs to allocate full pages to the process, so at a minimum, > > a call to sbrk will fetch at least 4k bytes (on ia32/x86_64 - more on > > PPC/Sparc/MIPS/ia64 where the minimum page size could be considerably > > larger). > > But if you are sbrking more because the page size is large, then you're > not sbrking more than you need. None of the pages, all 1 of them, goes > unmapped. There's no over-commit in this scenario. The question was about > overcommit. Do malloc() implementations typically only grow the heap by just one page at a time? My suspicion is that they grow by bigger chunks, to avoid frequent system calls to get more memory. Kind of like the programming strategy when you have a dynamically growing array, where you double its size every time it fills up. And I'll also bet that the initial heap size is over-committed, to avoid a flurry of sbrk() calls when the program starts and does lots of memory allocations. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-14 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dAxzp.1114$9z6.168@news.usenetserver.com> |
| In reply to | #559 |
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: >In article <87aaepwoyx.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >> > Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes: >> > >Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes: >> > > >> > >> In article <lnaaeyp35x.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, >> > >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Do many actual programs malloc() much more memory than they're >> > >>> actually going to use? >> > >> >> > >> Probably not, but that's not relevant. malloc isn't the system call >> > >> that adds memory to the process, sbrk is. When malloc find that the >> > >> heap is used up, it probably DOES request more memory with sbrk than it >> > >> needs just to satisfy the current request. >> > > >> > >Ah! Like Keith I'd often wondered about just why this happens. That >> > >makes a lot of sense: malloc wants big chunks of memory to parcel out >> > >from. >> > >> > And sbrk() needs to allocate full pages to the process, so at a minimum, >> > a call to sbrk will fetch at least 4k bytes (on ia32/x86_64 - more on >> > PPC/Sparc/MIPS/ia64 where the minimum page size could be considerably >> > larger). >> >> But if you are sbrking more because the page size is large, then you're >> not sbrking more than you need. None of the pages, all 1 of them, goes >> unmapped. There's no over-commit in this scenario. The question was about >> overcommit. > >Do malloc() implementations typically only grow the heap by just one >page at a time? My suspicion is that they grow by bigger chunks, to >avoid frequent system calls to get more memory. Kind of like the >programming strategy when you have a dynamically growing array, where >you double its size every time it fills up. > >And I'll also bet that the initial heap size is over-committed, to avoid >a flurry of sbrk() calls when the program starts and does lots of memory >allocations. Linux, first two brk's in a large application. Looks like 0x21000 bytes were allocated by the first brk call (135,168 bytes). brk(0) = 0x1862000 brk(0x1883000) = 0x1883000 scott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-10 22:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IU.D20110510.T211523.P4460.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> |
| In reply to | #413 |
>> malloc isn't the system call that adds memory to the process, sbrk >> is. [...] >> > Ah! Like Keith I'd often wondered about just why this happens. That > makes a lot of sense: malloc wants big chunks of memory to parcel out > from. > Yes. malloc() and free() are almost always just library functions, that are layered on top of the operating system's actual memory allocator. The operating system memory allocator varies quite widely. M. Margolin mentioned sbrk() for simplicity, but nowadays that model, which doesn't really match up very conveniently with the process address spaces that one gets in these days of dynamically loaded libraries, multiple threads, and so forth, is commonly relegated. Nowadays, a common implementation is to suballocate from within usually sparsely committed (i.e. the address space is reserved but not all pages are committed) heaps, usually in the MiBs, created on demand via VirtualAlloc(), mmap(), DosAllocMem(), or whatever mechanism the operating system provides. Operating system memory allocators usually work in terms of whole pages; and again a common implementation is to commit and decommit one or more pages, within the sparse page range used for a heap, as appropriate as memory is malloc()ed and free()d.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-08 11:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4dc6799d$0$81481$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #399 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: >I understand that overly optimistic allocation can make sense >for stack space; a program will likely never use as much stack >as it could. But I'm not convinced that the same thing applies >to malloc(). If a program calls malloc(), it's telling the OS that >it *will* use that memory (and probably soon). If the system can't >fulfill the request, it should refuse it in the first place. There are many usage of anonymous memory in a system: stack, heap but also the copy-on-write pages after a fork(). The system may not allocate the different types of memory in a different way, but some make a difference between the stack (no reservation is made) or fork/malloc (a reservation is made). Specifically in the case of fork, there is an argument to be made that that memory is unlikely ever used. >Do many actual programs malloc() much more memory than they're >actually going to use? Not a lot; but a lot of fork()ing happens without ever touching the copy-on-write pages. That is likely the most important reason for overcommit. Casper --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-08 08:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2011.05.08.07.14.56.906000@nowhere.com> |
| In reply to | #392 |
On Sat, 07 May 2011 13:53:41 -0700, Kleuskes & Moos wrote: > However, if i understand http://linux-mm.org/OOM_Killer correctly > (interesting read, BTW), processes may be killed, but not with a > SIGSEGV, so the program does not crash, but is terminated by the > system. This may not be the desired outcome, but it's not a bug. It's effectively sent SIGKILL, which cannot be caught, rather than SIGSEGV, which can be caught. SIGSEGV isn't really the same thing as a crash (largely because "crash" isn't a clearly-defined concept). I normally consider a crash to be when the process' data gets corrupted resulting in the process going out of control (which usually ends when it receives SIGSEGV due to dereferencing a bogus pointer).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar2003@boltar.world |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-10 08:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iqat3v$o01$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #321 |
On Mon, 9 May 2011 15:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> wrote: >Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against fork per se. I have >everything against POSIX when the only process spawn primitive is >fork, and I have everything against a culture and standard where the >default process spawn primitive is fork. For all of those awesome use At least there is the option of fork(). Thats more than you get on Windows with its piss poor process model. B2003
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 03:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfaa700e-b55a-4dbb-bec8-5158992b629e@r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #321 |
On May 5, 8:24 pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On May 5, 11:37 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote: > > > Hello > > > If a program recurses too deeply there's always a chance that it could > > run out of stack space and die with a SIGSEGV. Is there any API that can > > tell you how much stack space is left or some other method to prevent this > > in C/C++? I realise I could catch the signal but thats a pretty damn ugly > > way to do it. > > > B2003 > > The only proper way to avoid stack-overflows is to prevent it from > happening in the first place. If at all possible (and frequently it > is) avoid recursion, seems a bit strong. You can always avoid explicit recursion if you want to but it often makes the code ugly. You could track the recursion depth if it's unavoidable, as it sometimes is, make > sure your design prevents those situations from arising in the first > place. > > Trying to solve a design problem by imposing artificial limitations > seems a bad idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-05 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ip9b98-t4b.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #306 |
In comp.unix.programmer boltar2003@boltar.world wrote: > Hello > If a program recurses too deeply there's always a chance that it could > run out of stack space and die with a SIGSEGV. Is there any API that can > tell you how much stack space is left or some other method to prevent this > in C/C++? I realise I could catch the signal but thats a pretty damn ugly > way to do it. > B2003 Unless you're using threads this is unlikely, as the stack will grow dynamically on Linux. A recursive red-black tree implementation, for example would only use a few kilobytes even for a tree with millions of item. Just don't use an unbounded recursive algorithm and you should be fine. If you're running very critical code that can never fail, you shouldn't use recursive algorithms, and the code should be simple enough that you can statically calculate the maximum stack size. Maybe you lock the stack memory to prevent swapping, possibly also using makecontext(3). If you are using threads (where historically you're stuck with a fixed stack), one alternative on Linux not discussed yet is split stacks. GCC 4.6 supports -fsplit-stack, which implements a discontinguous, linked list type of stack. Of course, then there's the question of how to handle an out-of-memory condition. But by default Linux doesn't handle OOM conditions in a respectful manner; it summarily kills random processes according to the heuristic du jure.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]
Back to top | Article view | comp.unix.programmer
csiph-web